[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mxhrgba6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:51:05 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
tj@...nel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [virt] virtio-blk: Use ida to allocate disk index
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
> Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but as
> per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's your opinion?
>
> commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6
> Author: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Date: Sat Feb 21 11:04:45 2009 +0900
>
> [SCSI] sd: revive sd_index_lock
>
> Commit f27bac2761cab5a2e212dea602d22457a9aa6943 which converted sd to
> use ida instead of idr incorrectly removed sd_index_lock around id
> allocation and free. idr/ida do have internal locks but they protect
> their free object lists not the allocation itself. The caller is
> responsible for that. This missing synchronization led to the same id
> being assigned to multiple devices leading to oops.
I'm confused. Tejun, Greg, anyone can probes happen in parallel?
If so, I'll have to review all my drivers.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists